The Beginning of Socialism

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: ScepticScot

the community regulates things? I thought politicians did. You don't know what socialism is either. Individual ownership doesn't exist in it.

Hmmmm how would communities regulate things in the real world? Maybe some kind of system where people could vote on who makes the decisions. Can you think of any examples of that?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

USSR comes to mind

No sorry you are mistaken, I was asking for evidence.

You just wrote 4 words, that is not even a full sentance never mind evidence.

While the USSR can be argued as state-capitalism or socialism, I don't know how to give you a better example of socialism failing other than a failed socialist state. Unless you are suggesting the USSR still exists.

When did I suggest that the USSR was still in existence? I would have thought that my referring to it as a defunct communist regime should have clarified my opinion on that?

Yet again we seem to have an issue with the belief that socialism and communism are the same thing. Until you accept that they are not the same thing and that socialist policies can work very well alongside capitalist ones then we will all just continue to bang our heads against our respective walls.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: ScepticScot

the community regulates things? I thought politicians did. You don't know what socialism is either. Individual ownership doesn't exist in it.

Hmmmm how would communities regulate things in the real world? Maybe some kind of system where people could vote on who makes the decisions. Can you think of any examples of that?

I am starting to think that there is some a grade yank cranking going on here to be truthful mate.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.

Depending on what measures you want to use the USSR worked very well.

I think you have identified the crux of the disagreement here.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Representative government.

Sound familiar?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.

To be honest I just had to go out for a smoke as I was thinking the same thing...

PLease show me evidence that socialism does not work, as in write something substantial with links and historical reference.

Actually show me how it does not work.

All you have done is name two defunct communist regimes, that is not proof that socialism does not work.

How many millions of dead people will it take to convince you?

You know. I normally have a lot of respect for your posts because you seem to put effort into your opinions on things (especially your knowledge of Libertarianism) so I find it HIGHLY insulting that you'd stoop to such low brow tactics to dismiss Socialism. Even when I was advocating Libertarian I considered comparing Socialims to Communism like they are the same thing as lazy arguing. So if you aren't going to respect the other side of the debate, I may have to reduce my opinion of you.

I merely state fact.

I detect an irreconcilable impasse.

No, you've stated some sentences that are likely opinions, but are DEFINITELY unsourced and are in conflict of evidence presented earlier in this thread. Plus stating something is a fact doesn't make it so.

Here's one

From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.

Robert Owen, Pierre Leroux, Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, John Stuart Mill, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Thorstein Veblen, Emma Goldman.

Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. "Production for use": useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.

Can coexist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some (Social Democrats) advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Leninists advocate "Democratic centralism."

Democratic socialism, communism, libertarian socialism, social anarchism, and syndicalism.

Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State but with worker control.

Planned-socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.

A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.

Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.

The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in Public-ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative-ownership models).

Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than class distinctions. Some mobility.

The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.

Religion, jobs, & marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare & education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.

from Krazy's link

The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in Public-ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative-ownership models).

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: ScepticScot

the community regulates things? I thought politicians did. You don't know what socialism is either. Individual ownership doesn't exist in it.

Hmmmm how would communities regulate things in the real world? Maybe some kind of system where people could vote on who makes the decisions. Can you think of any examples of that?

Yes, it's not called socialism.

originally posted by: Vector99
Yes, it's not called socialism.

Actually, it can be.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Vector99
Yes, it's not called socialism.

Actually, it can be.

No then it turns into something else.

All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.

Explain how walmart does this? I'm part of the community, walmart does NOT benefit me in any way.

originally posted by: Vector99
No then it turns into something else.

No, because representative government is not exclusive to any one form of government.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: ScepticScot

the community regulates things? I thought politicians did. You don't know what socialism is either. Individual ownership doesn't exist in it.

Hmmmm how would communities regulate things in the real world? Maybe some kind of system where people could vote on who makes the decisions. Can you think of any examples of that?

Yes, it's not called socialism.

In context your comment only makes sense if you think democratic decisions on regulation aren't possible. You may want to elaborate on your answer.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Vector99
No then it turns into something else.

No, because representative government is not exclusive to any one form of government.

When you hand over regulation to a select few it is no longer socialism. How hard is that to understand?

Here is a more accurate assessment of the US currently

John Maynard Keynes revolutionized economic thought and proposed a system of “managed capitalism.” As a result of the Keynesian revolution government took a more active role in regulating the economy

.edu link

originally posted by: Vector99
When you hand over regulation to a select few it is no longer socialism. How hard is that to understand?

Actually electing representatives makes no difference. If the policies that these representatives enact are socialistic then what else can you call it?

a reply to: Vector99

Yes, call it anything else, as long as you don't call it socialism.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Vector99

Yes, call it anything else, as long as you don't call it socialism.

I wouldn't call a horse a cat, why would I call America socialist, especially when I've given you many sources showing it isn't one.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.

To be honest I just had to go out for a smoke as I was thinking the same thing...

PLease show me evidence that socialism does not work, as in write something substantial with links and historical reference.

Actually show me how it does not work.

All you have done is name two defunct communist regimes, that is not proof that socialism does not work.

How many millions of dead people will it take to convince you?

How many times do you need to be told that communism and socialism are not the same thing?

I suspect that you may have been indoctrinated as to the so called evils of socialism, the Regan administration did a very good job of this as did our own right wing governments of the same period.

I think that if you spend a few hours on google reading up about the topic that is being discussed you may be able to have a more valuable input.

Why Socialism Collapsed in Eastern Europe

“The socialist ideology promised equality, fraternity, and prosperity. Did it keep its promise? Did it deliver equality? The answer is no. Many people in the West will say, although they say it less often now, “Well, yes, of course they wait in lines in Poland or the Soviet Union, but they have a sense of solidarity; they are more equal; there is less income disparity.” That’s nonsense. If you compare the standard of living of the average citizen of East Germany, the richest of the fraternal nations of the socialist camp, with that of the party members who lived in Wandlitz, the neighborhood of the party elite, you find incredible disparities of income-but until recently they were kept secret. Similarly, if you look at the 22 palaces of the Ceaucescu family in Romania, or the sports complexes in Bulgaria that were only for members of the Zhivkov family, or the dachas of the Soviet party elite, you find more inequality than in the market societies of the West.”

"It should be no surprise that that influential and powerful book was written by a Central European, who spoke to his readers’ condition most forcefully. Marx had failed. He had predicted something that didn’t happen. Hayek predicted something that did: that the effort to implement socialism would lead to tyranny and serfdom. And he offered an alternative—liberty, a market economy, prosperity, and the rule of law."

originally posted by: Vector99
I wouldn't call a horse a cat, why would I call America socialist, especially when I've given you many sources showing it isn't one.

But you could call them both animals or mammals and it would not be incorrect.

ETA: I see that differentiation gets applied when it suits the argument.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Vector99
I wouldn't call a horse a cat, why would I call America socialist, especially when I've given you many sources showing it isn't one.

But you could call them both animals or mammals and it would not be incorrect.

ETA: I see that differentiation gets applied when it suits the argument.

This is what is taught in schools. I know you will misconstrue the word "mixed" to mean socialism. It doesn't.

What type of economic system exists in the United States today? Although the United States is often regarded as a capitalist system, it is actually a “mixed economy.” Adam Smith emphasized that private property rights, freedom of choice and competition are necessary and fundamental elements of pure capitalism. Does the United States economy fulfill these conditions? Sort of. The U.S. economic system does have a high degree of private ownership and individual freedom, (see link for an index of economic freedom) but a significant component of the economy is controlled by the government. In fact, current estimates indicate that Federal government spending accounts for up to one-third of our economy.
This wasn’t always the case. Prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the United States was primarily a free-market capitalist system and government involvement was minimal. But the massive unemployment and widespread poverty of the Great Depression caused some to believe that capitalism, as an economic system, had failed. John Maynard Keynes revolutionized economic thought and proposed a system of “managed capitalism.” As a result of the Keynesian revolution government took a more active role in regulating the economy. This period created a change in the nature of government and the assumption of government’s responsibilities. Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously created an economic bill of rights that specified certain rights that were to be afforded to all. These included the right to an education, affordable health care and housing. The government assumed the responsibility to house, feed and educate its citizens.

link

a reply to: Vector99

What exactly is being mixed?